Dispute with gun broker seller over legality of DPMS Panther Arms

[KIMBER8400]

U just made it up, mr troll expert.

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."

Per definition above ur trolling on this thread by making off topic statements.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Not my fault you don't understand that DPMS Panther Arms did exist and in theory still exists. It is not my fault you don't understand that DPMS Panther Arms was sold to Cerberus Capital Management and then eventually became DPMS under the Freedom Group.

It is not my fault that you don't understand that you showed that DPMS has a DBA for the name DPMS Panther Arms, which shows that it is not their real name.

Please show me that DPMS Panther Arms was ever a real company name (it is just a DBA). You claimed it was sold, but that does not show as being the real name. DPMS was sold, which is a different name than you are claiming.

DPMS Panther Arms built rifles and lowers as is evident by the photos of them in existence. That would explain why some newer guns no longer have the DPMS Panther Arms logo, but just DPMS.

Incorrect. It is just another name that they go by, not their real name as you showed.

And it further proves that DPMS Panther Arms existed so it would not be a make and model number as you so erroneously claim.

Only as a DBA, which makes it basically a model for DPMS.

You implied it when you said there is no need to trademark a manufacturer. I guess you forgot that already. Here it is again.

I did not imply that, you just jumped to conclusions.

So using your logic, Remington must not be a manufacturer since typically manufacturers don't need to trademark a name. Hey, it isn't my fault you are grasping at straws to make your case. I have clearly shown that DPMS registered the corporate name DPMS/Panther Arms. Not quite sure how you think that is irrelevant to your specious claim that DPMS Panther Arms is a make and model number.

Incorrect. You are just showing your bad logic.

It is false that you have shown that DPMS registered the corporate name DPMS/Panther Arms. You showed that they registered a DBA. You need to pay attention to the details.

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I just talked to a sales guy at DPMS. Their non-California guns still get the DPMS Panther Arms Mod:A-15. Their California guns get the DPMS Mod:A-15.

You mean that they are putting a FALSE manufacturer name on the firearm??? If their real name was DPMS Panther Arms, it would be a problem now claiming it was just DPMS. How can they use different names? Oh, it is because their real name is DPMS.

I still contend that is a CYA move to remove all doubt, but that no way proves that a DPMS Panther Arms Mod:A-15 is a DPMS Panther (all).

Really?

It might help you to remember how they made the Kasler List. They went and looked through a Shotgun News and added names from the advertisements. It is not our fault they didn't know how to properly list model numbers.

Yep, but that does not mean you can view it any way you choose.

The DPMS guy said the A-15 on their lowers means nothing, their model numbers are actually the mix of letters like RFTL-OC or RFA3-OC.

As long as it is shown to be the model name.

Again this whole discussion was the reason for the Harrott decision and Kasler List. It is too confusing so if the firearm is not specifically listed by make and model number, the courts are not to assume it is an AK/AR series.

Yes, but if it says DPMS and say Panther, then they can assume it is what is banned.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

U just made it up, mr troll expert.

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."

Per definition above ur trolling on this thread by making off topic statements.

If you don't like it, ignore me.

You don't have enough self control to do that???

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by taperxz

I sure do!! Its someone like you arguing over something with an expert (tenpercentfirearms) about the legality of a rifle that is CLEARLY legal in the state of CA and you saying it isn't.

Do you know what an ex-pert is?

Clearly legal? I disagree. Even Wes said that DPMS makes the CA legal firearms without the word Panther, so it seems that they don't agree either.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

It is not my fault that you don't understand that you showed that DPMS has a DBA for the name DPMS Panther Arms, which shows that it is not their real name.

Please show me that DPMS Panther Arms was ever a real company name (it is just a DBA). You claimed it was sold, but that does not show as being the real name. DPMS was sold, which is a different name than you are claiming.

I did. They registered as a corporation DPMS Panther Arms. DBA is just as good as a real name. Call them and ask if the sell DPMS Model Panther Arms rifles. They will laugh at you.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Incorrect. It is just another name that they go by, not their real name as you showed.

Can they cash checks with that name? Then it is their name. Why would you register a company as a rifle model number? Man you are making great sense today!

Originally Posted by kemasa

Only as a DBA, which makes it basically a model for DPMS.

Completely absurd.

Originally Posted by kemasa

I did not imply that, you just jumped to conclusions.

Nope, you implied that people don't "typically" TM their manufacturer names. I know of at least two companies that do. What do you know. You were wrong.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Incorrect. You are just showing your bad logic.

If it is bad logic, it is because I modeled it after you. Thanks for proving my point. I never tried to justify anything based off of a trademark.

Originally Posted by kemasa

It is false that you have shown that DPMS registered the corporate name DPMS/Panther Arms. You showed that they registered a DBA. You need to pay attention to the details.

No where on that form did it say DBA. Try again.

Originally Posted by kemasa

You mean that they are putting a FALSE manufacturer name on the firearm??? If their real name was DPMS Panther Arms, it would be a problem now claiming it was just DPMS. How can they use different names? Oh, it is because their real name is DPMS.

Speculation to the extreme. Call them and ask. See what they say.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yep, but that does not mean you can view it any way you choose.

I don't. Call DPMS and ask if they sell DPMS model Panther Arms rifles. I did. They said they do not. They said they are still known as DPMS Panther Arms.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yes, but if it says DPMS and say Panther, then they can assume it is what is banned.

FUD. There is no evidence that DPMS made a rifle called the DPMS model Panther Arms. DPMS/Panther Arms made a Mod.A-15 rifle. That rifle is not listed. The Harrott decision agrees since it states the AG must list specific make and model numbers. The legality of (all) is certainly questionable as well.

Hey, if you want to play it safe go for it. Don't do anything that says DPMS and Panther. However, based on that logic, if we simple call it a DPMS Panther, then it makes it a Panther and it is illegal. After all that is what the authorities will just claim and that puts you in hot water.

FUD!!!

DPMS Panther Arms is a company as I have shown. If we were to go off of your statement that they must put the same exact name from their license on their rifles, then they would need to put DPMS/BFI.

Face it. You lose this one.

[KIMBER8400]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Really, which law is that? Can you cite the Penal Code?

Of course you can't. What is clear about this is the Harrott decision.



No where in the Kasler List will you see the words "Panther Arms". What is banned is the DPMS Panther (all). Technically, if the firearm doesn't have "Panther (all)" on it, it is further not banned since it would need "Panther (all)" and not all models of "Panther".

So when a rifle says, DPMS Panther Arms Mod: A-15, that is no way an assault weapon.

That is the beauty of the Kasler List. You are either on it or you are not. As much as some people on the Internet like to spread FUD, it simply isn't true.



You still don't get it. The name of the company is DPMS Panther Arms. Look at the side of the receiver.



DPMS Panther Arms
Mod: A-15

And finally, if you don't believe Wikipedia, no biggie, a simple search of the Minnesota Secretary of State website shows a incorporation filing for DPMS/Panther Arms.

http://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Bu...6-001ec94ffe7f

I am sorry you guys can't do a little extrapoloation and figure out that it was originally DPMS Panther Arms until the Cerberus Capital Management bought it and combined it with the Freedom Group. Go through the Minnesota Secretary of State's website and the evidence is clearly there.

My favorite is that Manufacturers are rarely trademarked. LOL!!!

http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/8...s-panther-arms

Guess who owns the TM for DPMS Panther Arms? RA Brands LLC. Guess what else they own?

http://www.trademarks411.com/tradema...rands%2C+L.L.C.

Remington

Remington doesn't make guns, that is the model number. LOL!

FYI a law does not necessary have to be a statute, it could be case law, administrative law etc...

You argue that in order for DPMS to be banned it must state "Panther (all)"
This is not a logical conclusion. DPMS is referred to the make and Panther to the model, therefore "panther all" means all other panther variations. So it certain that the lower receiver should not have a stamp "panther (all)" to be illegal, it simply means any panther model variations. And the court will not buy your technicality argument.

You said it yourself that A-15 means nothing, then why bother talking about it?
At first you were arguing that A-15 is the model and now your saying that it does not mean anything because allegedly somebody at DPMS told you that.

Further, you say that the name of the company is DPMS Panther Arms. Then how come their company history indicates DPMS Firearms, INC and no where in their company history the refer to the company name as DPMS Panther Arms.
below is the company's history
http://www.dpmsinc.com/Company-History_ep_48-1.html

DPMS (Defence Procurement Manufacturing Services) was founded in 1985 by Randy Luth as a small government contract consulting company. The company served as a precision machine shop manufacturing M-16, M-14 and M203 parts for Army contracts. During this time, Mr. Luth also brokered M-16/AR-15 Mil Spec parts for the commercial markets.

After four years, DPMS began focusing on the sale of .45/1911 & AR-15 parts, kits and accessories. As DPMS began designing and manufacturing rifle accessories, it became obvious that an acquisition was the best path to continued growth. A manufacturer of lower receivers was purchased and, with DPMS’ ability to machine its own precision barrels, the DPMS line of AR-15/M-16 rifles was born.

Today, DPMS Firearms is located in St. Cloud, Minnesota and ranks as the second-largest manufacturer of AR-15 rifles*. DPMS currently holds four U.S. patents for innovative AR-15 rifle products. An additional patent is pending. DPMS firearms and patented accessories are currently in use worldwide by law enforcement agencies, military personnel and civilians, including U.S. Border Patrol officers and America's top competitive shooters and big game hunters.

DPMS the company created Team DPMS, a group of world-renowned competitive shooters. This elite group competes with DPMS rifles in shooting competitions across the country. Team DPMS members have included Randy Luth, Jerry Miculek, Bruce Piatt, Al Greco, Jim Clark, Jr., Tony Holmes, David Neth, Deb Cheek, Charles "Tate" Moots, James Darst, and Wayne Holloway.

Even their own company history shows with certainty that the name of the company is DPMS and not DPMS Panther Arms as you've been alleging.
Therefore, it is clear that there is more evidence that indicates Panther Arms is the model than there is to say that Panther Arms is the company name.

I suspect what is happening here is that they are testing the waters to see if they can pull it off.

[KIMBER8400]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

FUD. There is no evidence that DPMS made a rifle called the DPMS model Panther Arms. DPMS/Panther Arms made a Mod.A-15 rifle. That rifle is not listed. The Harrott decision agrees since it states the AG must list specific make and model numbers. The legality of (all) is certainly questionable as well.

You just said in your previous post that Mod A-15 means nothing, why are you referring to it when it means nothing to the company. As you alleged it does not mean a model A-15, they characterize their models differently. You are clearly contradicting yourself.
The legality of (all) may be questionable but until it is challenged in court it is what it is.

Let me throw a hypothetical at you, similar to these facts, to demonstrate your point.
EXAMPLE: AAA is a rifle company that produces AR-15 rifles and has a model: cobra. State X bans make: AAA model: cobra (all). AAA turns around and changes their name, DBA, INC or whatnot to AAA cobra, so now the company is named AAA cobra. They start producing the same rifles and stamp the lower as AAA cobra.
What your saying is that this rifle is not banned because it is the company's name. Do you really think that the court will buy this argument, considering the political circumstances of current events?

[KIMBER8400]

Another indication that DPMS is the company name and that they do sell Panther models.
It is clearly shown on the manual.
http://www.dpmsinc.com/assets/images/pdf/owners.pdf
Page 25 of the manual on the top portion reads

Your DPMS rifle is based on a military rifle design and is very rugged but proper maintenance is necessary to keep it in good working condition.
Field Stripping Disassembly...

In your previous post you said, "go ahead call DPMS and ask if they sell panther model, they'll laugh at you."

check out the manual page 1, which lists different DPMS Panther Models, such as Panther LR-308, LR-300 etc. Throughout the manual they don't refer to these refiles as DPMS Panther Arms, they refer in the manual language as indicated above DPMS when describing how to maintain the gun and when they show the guns they list them under Panther suggesting it is the model.

Admit it there is more evidence to argue the rifle is banned than there is to argue that it is not.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

You just said in your previous post that Mod A-15 means nothing, why are you referring to it when it means nothing to the company.

I said no such thing. DPMS said that. I think it means everything. A Mod.A-15 is not banned in California.

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

Let me throw a hypothetical at you, similar to these facts, to demonstrate your point.
EXAMPLE: AAA is a rifle company that produces AR-15 rifles and has a model: cobra. State X bans make: AAA model: cobra (all). AAA turns around and changes their name, DBA, INC or whatnot to AAA cobra, so now the company is named AAA cobra. They start producing the same rifles and stamp the lower as AAA cobra.
What your saying is that this rifle is not banned because it is the company's name. Do you really think that the court will buy this argument, considering the political circumstances of current events?

The courts already ruled that the AG must add specific makes and models to the list in the Harrott Case. So yes, if a new company or an existing company changes its name or model number, that rifle is legal assuming it does not violate the generic features ban. You really should read the Harrott decision and if you did and don't understand it, bow out.

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

Another indication that DPMS is the company name and that they do sell Panther models.
It is clearly shown on the manual.
http://www.dpmsinc.com/assets/images/pdf/owners.pdf
Page 25 of the manual on the top portion reads

Your DPMS rifle is based on a military rifle design and is very rugged but proper maintenance is necessary to keep it in good working condition.
Field Stripping Disassembly...

In your previous post you said, "go ahead call DPMS and ask if they sell panther model, they'll laugh at you."

check out the manual page 1, which lists different DPMS Panther Models, such as Panther LR-308, LR-300 etc. Throughout the manual they don't refer to these refiles as DPMS Panther Arms, they refer in the manual language as indicated above DPMS when describing how to maintain the gun and when they show the guns they list them under Panther suggesting it is the model.

Admit it there is more evidence to argue the rifle is banned than there is to argue that it is not.

You are in over your head. The exact quote I made was

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I did. They registered as a corporation DPMS Panther Arms. DBA is just as good as a real name. Call them and ask if the sell DPMS Model Panther Arms rifles. They will laugh at you.

We know they sell Panther models. They do not sell Panther Arms models.

I clicked on your link above and did a search for the words "Panther Arms". It always appeared when referring to the company and it turned up 8 references to DPMS/Panther Arms and all in the context of the company name and never in the context of a rifle model. Thank you for helping me further prove my case.

If you don't understand the difference between a Panther model and DPMS/Panther Arms and you can't accurately quote me, you really should step away. You are in over your head.

And in light of the Harrott decision and the confusion you have on the issue, do you really think the courts are going to rule against you when the Attorney General did not specify which models they wanted to ban, but just an (all).

The good news is no one cares so I doubt that court case will ever get decided. We will just have to continue to go off of the Kasler List and the fact that DPMS/Panther Arms is a company, not a make and model number.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

You argue that in order for DPMS to be banned it must state "Panther (all)"
This is not a logical conclusion. DPMS is referred to the make and Panther to the model, therefore "panther all" means all other panther variations. So it certain that the lower receiver should not have a stamp "panther (all)" to be illegal, it simply means any panther model variations. And the court will not buy your technicality argument.

Give up. He thinks he can define the word "single" to be anything that he wants and thinks that he can ignore CA PC sections as he chooses, so you are never going to get him to admit that it is not what he has warped it to mean. No doubt he does not know what "(all)" means and since he chooses to take it literally, then so should you.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Give up. He thinks he can define the word "single" to be anything that he wants and thinks that he can ignore CA PC sections as he chooses, so you are never going to get him to admit that it is not what he has warped it to mean. No doubt he does not know what "(all)" means and since he chooses to take it literally, then so should you.

When you can't make a good argument, make personal attacks. Hypocrite!

I wonder why DPMS/Panther Arms was in their manual so much? LOL.

You guys have no case.

Now, keep in mind the (all) is purely theoretical. The Harrott decision was clear

that the specific make and model of an assault weapon must first appear on the list the Attorney General, pursuant to section 12276.5, subdivision (h), files with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations.

With that, would the Attorney General's adding firearms to the Kasler List and adding (all) at the end be sufficient enough for Harrott's decree to list speicifc make and model of an assault weapon? That is what I am theoretically asking. It has yet to be decided. I would think there is a good chance that it would be found improper and part of my evidence is this very conversation here. If two firearms experts like myself and kemasa can't agree, then that lends evidence to the original intent of Harrott that this is all too confusing for expertts to figure out, it is certainly going to be confusing to the average gun owner.

DPMS/Panther Arms is clearly the manufacturer. Mod.A-15 is the make. That lower receiver is not banned by name. If it just said DPMS Panther MOD.A-15, then I would agree with you as it would be a model of DPMS Panther (all). However, Panther Arms is not a model name as is evident from the liturature that Kimber8400 posted.

[kemasa]

Sorry, but you are wrong since the fact that you can't understand what word Single means is not a personal attack. This just goes to show that you have issues with reading and understanding things. I guess you don't have a clue of what a personal attack is, although your claim that I am a hypocrite, while false, is a personal attack.

What I said was completely true, based on your own words, which it appears that you don't like.

To me, the real problem is the banned by name bans firearms which are no different than other firearms which are not banned, other than the name on it. Yes, in this case you have issues because some make arguments as to whether a specific firearm is banned or not.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Sorry, but you are wrong since the fact that you can't understand what word Single means is not a personal attack. This just goes to show that you have issues with reading and understanding things. I guess you don't have a clue of what a personal attack is, although your claim that I am a hypocrite, while false, is a personal attack.

What I said was completely true, based on your own words, which it appears that you don't like.

Nice rant. You can't argue the issue at hand so you bring up other arguments that are unrelated. AKA, a personal attack. Personal attacks that you are quick to whine about in other threads. Hypocrisy. Stick to the subject. I have no problem if you don't, it just means you have nothing of relevance to say here and concede defeat.

Originally Posted by kemasa

To me, the real problem is the banned by name bans firearms which are no different than other firearms which are not banned, other than the name on it. Yes, in this case you have issues because some make arguments as to whether a specific firearm is banned or not.

Harrott covers this and says despite this, you still need to ban them by specific make and model number. The original Merrilees letter also mentions this. So it isn't really a problem as it has been addressed already by both the courts and the AGs office. Even though they are identical, unless it is listed by specific make and model number, it is not an assault weapon (assuming that the generic features ban is not violated).



As you can see, I don't need to comment on you whatsoever to clearly prove my case.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Nice rant. You can't argue the issue at hand so you bring up other arguments that are unrelated. AKA, a personal attack. Personal attacks that you are quick to whine about in other threads. Hypocrisy. Stick to the subject. I have no problem if you don't, it just means you have nothing of relevance to say here and concede defeat.

Wrong again. The issue at hand, in part, is whether you know what the meaning of words is, such as all or single (as a good example), so it is related. It seems that you are the one whining and resorting to personal attacks, not me.

I do concede defeat as it is impossible to convince you of what words means as you have previously shown. I do not concede defeat, other than not being able to convince you of anything.

For an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...onal_attack.3F

...
As you can see, I don't need to comment on you whatsoever to clearly prove my case.

That is funny. Completely false, but funny. You don't need to comment on me? What in the world do you think you did in the first paragraph??? This is why it is pointless to try to discuss it with you as your reality is far different than the one the rest of us live in.

As to the letter, it is quite nice, if that is actually what is enforced, but I have yet to see that change in regards what is claimed to be a so-called a-salt weapon.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Wrong again. The issue at hand, in part, is whether you know what the meaning of words is, such as all or single (as a good example), so it is related. It seems that you are the one whining and resorting to personal attacks, not me.

I do concede defeat as it is impossible to convince you of what words means as you have previously shown. I do not concede defeat, other than not being able to convince you of anything.

For an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...onal_attack.3F



That is funny. Completely false, but funny. You don't need to comment on me? What in the world do you think you did in the first paragraph??? This is why it is pointless to try to discuss it with you as your reality is far different than the one the rest of us live in.

I was pointing out your hypocrisy and how it is irrelevant to the conversation. You could have seen the error in your ways and stuck to the subject, but instead you continued on your rant. Again, no big deal. When you have nothing left to use, go personal and change the subject. Your tacit admit to defeat is refreshing. Further comment on it continues to solidify your lack of standing on the actual subject at hand.

Originally Posted by kemasa

As to the letter, it is quite nice, if that is actually what is enforced, but I have yet to see that change in regards what is claimed to be a so-called a-salt weapon.

I am sorry, I don't even understand what you are saying here. The AG's lawyer gave out an opinion based on her reading of the Harrott decision. That is what is being enforced. Unless you have some other evidence stating otherwise like people being arrested and prosecuted for having off list lowers that are being claimed to be listed.

If you know of any such cases, please cite them. Otherwise when the Harrott decision says specific make and model and the AG says particular make and model, that tends to be the final word. Unless there is another court case over something less concrete like the DPMS Panther (all). However, based on the Harrott decision and Ms. Merrilees letter, I think I know which way the courts are going to decide.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I was pointing out your hypocrisy and how it is irrelevant to the conversation. You could have seen the error in your ways and stuck to the subject, but instead you continued on your rant. Again, no big deal. When you have nothing left to use, go personal and change the subject. Your tacit admit to defeat is refreshing. Further comment on it continues to solidify your lack of standing on the actual subject at hand.

No, you were being a hypocrite and engaging in personal attacks, whereas I was not. I was sticking to the subject, which, in part, is that you don't know the meaning of words or you warp them to what you want it to be.

Yes, it is clear that you have nothing left to use, so you decided to go personal on me and change the subject and making all sorts of false claims.

I am not changing the subject, other than to say that there is no way you are going to give up and as an example, I brought up the issue of the word "single", which relates to the word "all" in this case.

Yes, I admit defeat, just as in that I can't convince you of what "single" means. It does not mean that you are right, but just that you can't be convinced of reality.

I am sorry, I don't even understand what you are saying here. The AG's lawyer gave out an opinion based on her reading of the Harrott decision. That is what is being enforced. Unless you have some other evidence stating otherwise like people being arrested and prosecuted for having off list lowers that are being claimed to be listed.

Look at the AW guide. Has it been updated? What do all the DAs view it as? You don't know what is being enforced unless you talk to ALL of the DAs, do you?

If you know of any such cases, please cite them. Otherwise when the Harrott decision says specific make and model and the AG says particular make and model, that tends to be the final word. Unless there is another court case over something less concrete like the DPMS Panther (all). However, based on the Harrott decision and Ms. Merrilees letter, I think I know which way the courts are going to decide.

You mean like years ago a woman was charged with having an illegal so-called a-salt weapon, which was a SKS? Yep, the government was wrong, but that did not mean that she was not charged. I never heard the outcome, but it had been going on a year when I heard of it. They were trying to get her to plea out so that she could not sue them.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

No, you were being a hypocrite and engaging in personal attacks, whereas I was not. I was sticking to the subject, which, in part, is that you don't know the meaning of words or you warp them to what you want it to be.

Yes, it is clear that you have nothing left to use, so you decided to go personal on me and change the subject and making all sorts of false claims.

I am not changing the subject, other than to say that there is no way you are going to give up and as an example, I brought up the issue of the word "single", which relates to the word "all" in this case.

Yes, I admit defeat, just as in that I can't convince you of what "single" means. It does not mean that you are right, but just that you can't be convinced of reality.

Poor kemasa, can't win an argument on merit, so he loses on personal attacks too. Try sticking to the subject at hand. Oh wait, you can't because you have no case. So make up erroneous claims about me from previous threads. Everyone knows if the situation was turned you would be crying to high heavens. LOL. The desperation is sickening.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Look at the AW guide. Has it been updated? What do all the DAs view it as? You don't know what is being enforced unless you talk to ALL of the DAs, do you?

You mean like years ago a woman was charged with having an illegal so-called a-salt weapon, which was a SKS? Yep, the government was wrong, but that did not mean that she was not charged. I never heard the outcome, but it had been going on a year when I heard of it. They were trying to get her to plea out so that she could not sue them.

So there is no evidence that anyone is being prosecuted for Category 2 variation violations, but the fact no one is getting prosecuted is evidence they might get prosecuted despite there being a very clear cut court case and an AG's opinion that concurs or at least verifies?

Right.

I suppose you are correct though. There is a chance anyone can charge you with anything at any time. That is the best justification of the FUD dispenser.

[KIMBER8400]

Mr. Self proclaimed Expert, patience is a virtue.
Everything in due time.
Just hold that thought on hypocrisy.

[monk]

Before we assume the awb list is anything other than inaccurate bs, remember that the KAC RAS, a handguard, is banned.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Poor kemasa, can't win an argument on merit, so he loses on personal attacks too. Try sticking to the subject at hand. Oh wait, you can't because you have no case. So make up erroneous claims about me from previous threads. Everyone knows if the situation was turned you would be crying to high heavens. LOL. The desperation is sickening.

Poor delusional Wes, he thinks that he can win with personal attacks and claim he is not doing that. He thinks he can ignore things and present nonrelevant information as proof. Your claims against me are false, because I do have a case. You refuse to stick to the subject at hand. The claims about you and the word single is completely accurate, based on your own words.

So, Wes, I have said this before and you have ignored it. You have presented DBAs which you incorrectly claimed was proof. You said that you talked to someone who answered the phone at DPMS and claimed that was proof, but that is also nothing.

There is one and only one thing which would be the proof. It is from the one and only source which defines who is a manufacturer, which is a FFL. As I said, there is NO FFL with the name "DPMS Panther Arms". There is a FFL with the name "DPMS". So, provide proof of a FFL with the name "DPMS Panther Arms".

Then, let's take a close look at said firearm. Firearms are required to be marked in a certain way by the BATF which includes the Manufacturer name AND City. In looking at a picture of a firearm which has the "DPMS Panther Arms" on it, for some strange reason I don't see the city/state under that. How strange. But what I do see, further to the right, is DPMS with city/state (St Cloud, MN, USA), which is the required information for a manufacturer. Hmmm, that seems to indicate that the manufacturer is DPMS, not DPMS Panther Arms. That also makes "Panther Arms" a model line.


So, for your second chance, please provide a picture of a DPMS Panther Arms with the City/State right under it, as required for a manufacturer.

Dare I say "checkmate" or "game, set and match"? :-)

So there is no evidence that anyone is being prosecuted for Category 2 variation violations, but the fact no one is getting prosecuted is evidence they might get prosecuted despite there being a very clear cut court case and an AG's opinion that concurs or at least verifies?

The letter that you provided was in regards to a lower which was not listed by any name, so it really does not apply to this case.

Right.

I suppose you are correct though. There is a chance anyone can charge you with anything at any time. That is the best justification of the FUD dispenser.

Yeah, you want to claim it is FUD, but with bogus "proof". Provide proof that there is a manufacturer called "DPMS Panther Arms" by means of a FFL. You could get a DBA as "10% Arms", but that would not make you a manufacturer unless you get the proper FFL.

In a related note, with respect to DPMS Panther Arms, who said:

I wouldn't want to be the test case for it, but you can.

There are too many other lowers out there that aren't even close to being listed, unless you are doing it out of principle, there is no practical reason to take that risk.

Prior to that, who said:

DPMS Panther-marked lowers are likely considered banned.

Care to address these quotes? Oh, I know, the views have changed.

[kemasa]

Hmmm, is Wes keeping silent now?

Last Activity: 05-09-2013 11:37 AM

Yet, there has not been a response to this. Perhaps he has admitted defeat, at least to himself, but I doubt that he will admit it in public.

Wes: All you need to do to prove your case is to provide a copy of a FFL with "DPMS Panther Arms" on it or provide a picture of a firearm which has the name "DPMS Panther Arms" with the City, State and Country under it, as required for manufacturers (it should have the correct city though :-). Pretty simple, right?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Poor delusional Wes, he thinks that he can win with personal attacks and claim he is not doing that. He thinks he can ignore things and present nonrelevant information as proof. Your claims against me are false, because I do have a case. You refuse to stick to the subject at hand. The claims about you and the word single is completely accurate, based on your own words.

You cannot stick to the subject can you?

Originally Posted by kemasa

So, Wes, I have said this before and you have ignored it. You have presented DBAs which you incorrectly claimed was proof. You said that you talked to someone who answered the phone at DPMS and claimed that was proof, but that is also nothing.

We have provided MN Secretary of State corporation filings for a DPMS/Panther Arms. Proof there is a company called DPMS/Panther Arms. I asked a man on the phone at DPMS who works for DPMS if they were once DPMS Panther Arms and he said they still are. Your wingman has provided manuals from DPMS/Panther Arms which say they are DPMS/Panther Arms.

All three excellent Proof that they are DPMS/Panther Arms.

Originally Posted by kemasa

There is one and only one thing which would be the proof. It is from the one and only source which defines who is a manufacturer, which is a FFL. As I said, there is NO FFL with the name "DPMS Panther Arms". There is a FFL with the name "DPMS". So, provide proof of a FFL with the name "DPMS Panther Arms".

Please show us the FFL "DPMS". You won't find it. The current FFL list for MN shows a "DPMS/BFI" as a business name and the license name is listed as "REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC".

http://www.atf.gov/files/about/foia/...-minnesota.txt

So not only is there no FFL with DPMS/Panther Arms, there is no FFL DPMS. That kind of ruins your theory that the name on the license must be the name on the firearm doesn't it?

Originally Posted by kemasa

Then, let's take a close look at said firearm. Firearms are required to be marked in a certain way by the BATF which includes the Manufacturer name AND City. In looking at a picture of a firearm which has the "DPMS Panther Arms" on it, for some strange reason I don't see the city/state under that. How strange. But what I do see, further to the right, is DPMS with city/state (St Cloud, MN, USA), which is the required information for a manufacturer. Hmmm, that seems to indicate that the manufacturer is DPMS, not DPMS Panther Arms.

Ture.

Originally Posted by kemasa

That also makes "Panther Arms" a model line.

Not true. Complete FUD on your part and speculation. Since DPMS does not exist, then in theory they can't stamp it on their lower. Well according to you anyway.

Originally Posted by kemasa

So, for your second chance, please provide a picture of a DPMS Panther Arms with the City/State right under it, as required for a manufacturer.

Please cite where the ATF states that the manufacturer must be printed along with the city state underneath it. I know that is your assumption, so back it up with a citation.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Dare I say "checkmate" or "game, set and match"? :-)

You can, but that would mean you don't know much about chess either since your game is so full of holes.

Originally Posted by kemasa

The letter that you provided was in regards to a lower which was not listed by any name, so it really does not apply to this case.

Wrong. Harrott says it must be listed by specific make and model number and the AG says by particular make and model. That establishes the burdon of proof upon the state.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yeah, you want to claim it is FUD, but with bogus "proof". Provide proof that there is a manufacturer called "DPMS Panther Arms" by means of a FFL. You could get a DBA as "10% Arms", but that would not make you a manufacturer unless you get the proper FFL.

There is no FFL named DPMS either. So that is a fail for you. Clearly manufacturers can deviate from their "license" name.

Originally Posted by kemasa

In a related note, with respect to DPMS Panther Arms, who said:

You are so inept you don't even know do you? And you expect us to believe you on any of these things you continue to get wrong when you post quotes from people you don't even know who they are?

Originally Posted by kemasa

Prior to that, who said:

I don't know. Who was it? Who ever it was was likely a genius because DPMS Panther (all) is listed and he/she is correct. However DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15s are clearly not listed.

I don't quite understand your tactic of saying you don't agree with me and then posting all sorts of evidence that shows you agree with me. It is very unique.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Hmmm, is Wes keeping silent now?

Yet, there has not been a response to this. Perhaps he has admitted defeat, at least to himself, but I doubt that he will admit it in public.

Sad desperation. Like stalker level sad. I am kind of concerned about my own welfare. God I hope my face is not on some blow up doll in Simi-Valley somewhere.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Wes: All you need to do to prove your case is to provide a copy of a FFL with "DPMS Panther Arms" on it or provide a picture of a firearm which has the name "DPMS Panther Arms" with the City, State and Country under it, as required for manufacturers (it should have the correct city though :-). Pretty simple, right?

First, show us the ATF requirements of what is to be stamped on a firearm. So far, you are speculating.

Next, show us a FFL that says DPMS on it. If you can't find one and yet there are current production lowers with DPMS and not DPMS/BFI or Remington Arms Company LLC, then your FFL request means nothing. Which means a company can have a name and stamp something different on their lowers. Imagine that.

Sorry, I won't be tracking your movements to see when you are going to post, but I am sure it will be any second now as you sit and wait for your next dosage of all things Wes Morris. Ewww.

[KIMBER8400]

Mr. Self-proclaimed expert, (tenpercentfirearms)
It is clear that you are arguing with yourself. At one point in time you implied that DPMS Panther Arms Mod a-15 is banned, then you argue that it's not.
Which side are of the argument are you on?

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

You cannot stick to the subject can you?

I can, but clearly you can not.

We have provided MN Secretary of State corporation filings for a DPMS/Panther Arms. Proof there is a company called DPMS/Panther Arms. I asked a man on the phone at DPMS who works for DPMS if they were once DPMS Panther Arms and he said they still are. Your wingman has provided manuals from DPMS/Panther Arms which say they are DPMS/Panther Arms.

All three excellent Proof that they are DPMS/Panther Arms.

As pointed out, there is only one source of proof for a firearm manufacturer, the BATF FFL database. You can create a DBA "10% Arms", but that does not make you a manufacturer. So who is this unnamed person at DPMS who make those claims?

It is not excellent proof, in fact it is no proof.

Please show us the FFL "DPMS". You won't find it. The current FFL list for MN shows a "DPMS/BFI" as a business name and the license name is listed as "REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC".

False. There is no DPMS/BFI as a business name.

Use the BATF ezcheck to look up: 3-41-03584 or 9-87-02030, both are listed as manufacturers.

Example:

License Name: REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC
Trade Name: LAR MANUFACTURING/REMINGTON/BFI/DPMS/AAC/TAPCO

Please note that the "/" separates the different names, it is not one name.

From the FFL database:

REMINGTON / MARLIN / H&R 1871 / BFI / DPMS
REMINGTON / MARLIN / H&R 1871 / BFI / DPMS
LAR MANUFACTURING/REMINGTON/BFI/DPMS/AAC/TAPCO
DPMS/BFI/REMINGTON

Notice that there is no "DPMS/BFI", but there is a "DPMS/BFI/REMINGTON", but for some reason Wes left off the "REMINGTON". Is that an attempt to be deceptive?

Under Wes' "logic", then DPMS does not exist at all, only Remington.

http://www.atf.gov/files/about/foia/...-minnesota.txt

So not only is there no FFL with DPMS/Panther Arms, there is no FFL DPMS. That kind of ruins your theory that the name on the license must be the name on the firearm doesn't it?

False, as shown. The name DPMS is listed as one of many trade names, but there is no trade name listed as "DPMS Panther Arm" nor any "Panther Arms".

Ture. Not true. Complete FUD on your part and speculation. Since DPMS does not exist, then in theory they can't stamp it on their lower. Well according to you anyway.

It is only your delusion that DPMS does not exist. It exists as a manufacturer trade name, which makes it exist as a manufacturer. Also, the picture provided shows that DPMS exists as a manufacturer.

Please cite where the ATF states that the manufacturer must be printed along with the city state underneath it. I know that is your assumption, so back it up with a citation.

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart F—Conduct of Business
§ 478.92 How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?

You can, but that would mean you don't know much about chess either since your game is so full of holes.

Incorrect.

Wrong. Harrott says it must be listed by specific make and model number and the AG says by particular make and model. That establishes the burdon of proof upon the state.

So they can't ban all Panther models?

There is no FFL named DPMS either. So that is a fail for you. Clearly manufacturers can deviate from their "license" name.

Really? Please provide a citation to that.

The law that I see says:

C) Your name (or recognized abbreviation) and also, when applicable, the name of the foreign manufacturer;

I do not see anything which says that they can put what they want.

You are so inept you don't even know do you? And you expect us to believe you on any of these things you continue to get wrong when you post quotes from people you don't even know who they are?

False. I know who the people are. One of them was you and the other was Bwiese. I just wanted to see if you would remember what you previously wrote.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...5&postcount=12

I don't know. Who was it? Who ever it was was likely a genius because DPMS Panther (all) is listed and he/she is correct. However DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15s are clearly not listed.

It is only clearly not listed to you.

I don't quite understand your tactic of saying you don't agree with me and then posting all sorts of evidence that shows you agree with me. It is very unique.

Quite delusional. I showed that DPMS is the manufacturer, not DPMS Panther Arms, which shows a serious problem with your position.

Sad desperation. Like stalker level sad. I am kind of concerned about my own welfare. God I hope my face is not on some blow up doll in Simi-Valley somewhere.

What was that you said? Stick to the subject? What about personal attacks? It also shows how delusional you are.

First, show us the ATF requirements of what is to be stamped on a firearm. So far, you are speculating.

See above. No speculation.

Next, show us a FFL that says DPMS on it. If you can't find one and yet there are current production lowers with DPMS and not DPMS/BFI or Remington Arms Company LLC, then your FFL request means nothing. Which means a company can have a name and stamp something different on their lowers. Imagine that.

See above.

You also show that you don't understand a "/". There is no DPMS/BFI as you falsely suggest since you eliminated the next characters after that, but the slash is a separation between the different names, not one name.

Sorry, I won't be tracking your movements to see when you are going to post, but I am sure it will be any second now as you sit and wait for your next dosage of all things Wes Morris. Ewww.

Again, off subject, personal attack. What was that you said? Desperation?

Provide proof that there is a manufacturer called "DPMS Panther Arms". Search the BATF database you will not find "Panther Arms" at all.

As I said, you will never give up, never admit reality.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

Mr. Self-proclaimed expert, (tenpercentfirearms)
It is clear that you are arguing with yourself. At one point in time you implied that DPMS Panther Arms Mod a-15 is banned, then you argue that it's not.
Which side are of the argument are you on?

I said no such thing. Feel free to quote me.

Kemasa, click my link tot he ATF excel sheet of MN manufacturers. It says exactly what I said it says.

http://www.atf.gov/files/about/foia/...-minnesota.txt

3 41 145 07 4G 03584 REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC DPMS/BFI

Sorry, but you are wrong. That is what is says letter for letter. It makes no mention of Remington at the end of BFI. I left nothing off. Just click the link and see for yourself.

So all of your other ranting is inconsequential as I did not leave anything off. Which makes you wrong. Just like you are on the whole subject.

Is DPMS the manufacturer? Then why is DPMS Panther Arms on their receiver? Why does DPMS/Panther Arms have a coporate entity in MN? Why does DPMS/Panther Arms refer to themselves as DPMS/Panther Arms in literature and by phone? Interesting.

Can you show that the model of the firearm is Panther Arms? So far we have absolutely no literature to suggest that is the model name. I wonder why that is?

Go ahead, call them up, ask for a DPMS Panther Arms model. See what they say.

DPMS makes Panther modeled firearms. A DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15 is not a Panther (all). It really is that simple. To claim that the model is a Panther Arms MOD.A-15 is absurd considering there is no evidence out there whatsoever to support it.

Yet all of my evidence to support that DPMS/Panther Arms exists.

Your only consolation is that you can't find DPMS/Panther Arms in the FFL database. Well you can't find DPMS by itself either, yet there it is on their receivers. So clearly leaving out portions of the company name don't seem to be out of line with the ATF. Further, the regulations do not say that the city and state must be printed underneath the company name.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...-sec478-92.pdf

So DPMS Panther Arms very well could be the manufacturer and they put another DPMS on the side for fun.

You have no case. Sorry.

[KIMBER8400]

Had I known in advance that the very same issue was raised and answered by cal gun community, I would not have opened this thread.
At this point it is irrelevant what ten percent says because as the above thread coupled with kemasa's good faith arguments indicate, the rifle is banned.

[longv]

so what dpms panther models where made when the list was created? are those exact models still made, same roll marks? if its any different could that mean they are not considered to be on the list? top of the list states ar series. so the dpms panther lr308 is legal in ca? was there a dpms panther ar15/10 in the past that the list would reflect? turners has had the dpms panther lr308 for sale in the past and listed has dpms (make) panther lr308 (model)

[Condorguns]

I cringe to think this thread is what newer Cal Gun members will read if they come here to ask a FFL a question.

I feel like sending everyone to their room for a time out.

[KIMBER8400]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

I said no such thing. Feel free to quote me.

[QUOTE][i just saw a dpms a-15 in a california gun shop
near the logo it says DPMS - Panther Arms

then below the .223\5.56mm markings it says

model a-15

it does say panther near the manufacturer name but not as a model.
whats your guys' opinions on this.
edit: seems like he should get rid of that thing ASAP!
/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennywize
whats your guys' opinions on this.


I wouldn't want to be the test case for it, but you can.
There are too many other lowers out there that aren't even close to being listed, unless you are doing it out of principle, there is no practical reason to take that risk.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

Check post 10 and 12 of this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=107795
And check the rest of it as well.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

At this point it is irrelevant what ten percent says because as the above thread coupled with kemasa's good faith arguments indicate, the rifle is banned.

Which gets us right back to where we were. You don't really care what anyone says, your mind is made up no matter what the evidence. Your goal from the start seems to be that of the GunBroker Police. Someone give the guy a badge.

Originally Posted by KIMBER8400

Check post 10 and 12 of this thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=107795
And check the rest of it as well.

More fail for you. In 2008 I said I wouldn't want to be the test case. That is not me saying, "At one point in time you implied that DPMS Panther Arms Mod a-15 is banned, then you argue that it's not."

I also told him unless he wants to do it out of principle there are other lowers with less risk. I implied someone might find it worth their while to test this out back then, which means I thought they might have a case. Just like the case I am making now.

You have been misquoting me this entire time. Step up your game.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Kemasa, click my link tot he ATF excel sheet of MN manufacturers. It says exactly what I said it says.

Ever hear of the best evidence rule? I suspect not. You looked at the FOIA, whereas I looked at the BATF FFL database. Also, go look at the BATF ezcheck and see what it says.

From the BATF ezcheck web page:

License Number: 3-41-XXX-XX-XX-03584
Expiration Date: 07/01/2014
License Name: REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC
Trade Name: DPMS/BFI/REMINGTON

Premise Address:
3312 12TH ST SE
SAINT CLOUD
MN - 56304

Mailing Address:
P O BOX 700
MADISON
NC - 270250700

LOA Issue Date:
LOA Expiration Date:

Sorry, but you are wrong. That is what is says letter for letter. It makes no mention of Remington at the end of BFI. I left nothing off. Just click the link and see for yourself.

Well, as shown you are wrong. You did not bother to check a better source, such as when you used wikipedia for a reference.

So all of your other ranting is inconsequential as I did not leave anything off. Which makes you wrong. Just like you are on the whole subject.

So, you use bad sources and claim that I am wrong?

Is DPMS the manufacturer? Then why is DPMS Panther Arms on their receiver? Why does DPMS/Panther Arms have a coporate entity in MN? Why does DPMS/Panther Arms refer to themselves as DPMS/Panther Arms in literature and by phone? Interesting.

Ok, go back and look at the link that you provided. You want to claim that DPMS does not exist? Interesting, but the reference you gave was for a "Assumed Name" (aka DBA). As said, that does not make them a manufacturer under Federal law, but look closer and see what the real company name that got the assumed name, which is "DPMS/ Firearms LLC", but that presents a problem since you say that DPMS does not exist.

As required, DPMS is on the firearm, above the city, state and country, so why isn't it DPMS Panther Arms there? I guess you think that if a manufacturer puts a Zombie on the receiver then suddenly there is a Zombie firearms manufacturer, right?

Because they have a DBA, they can refer to themselves as that, but that is not what is on the license, so that is not the name of a manufacturer.

Can you show that the model of the firearm is Panther Arms? So far we have absolutely no literature to suggest that is the model name. I wonder why that is?

It is a model line. Why would DPMS exclude Panther for CA versions?

Go ahead, call them up, ask for a DPMS Panther Arms model. See what they say.

I prefer to use the link that you provided, the BATF FFL database and an actual firearm than to just call a random person and ask them, especially since typically it is not someone who is in management who answers the phone when it is a large company.

DPMS makes Panther modeled firearms. A DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15 is not a Panther (all). It really is that simple. To claim that the model is a Panther Arms MOD.A-15 is absurd considering there is no evidence out there whatsoever to support it.

So, you say that DPMS, which you claimed does not exist, makes "Panther MODELED firearms", but that Panther is not a model? Huh? Since the list says "Panther (all)", you claim regarding the model is absurd.

Which is it? Do you think that DPMS exists or not? You are all over the board with this.

If you can get a real legal opinion that the "(all)" is no longer valid with respect to DPMS firearms which also have the word "Panther" on it, then you will have something.

Yet all of my evidence to support that DPMS/Panther Arms exists.

Yes, DPMS Panther Arms exists as a DBA, but that does not mean that it exists as a firearm manufacturer.

Your only consolation is that you can't find DPMS/Panther Arms in the FFL database. Well you can't find DPMS by itself either, yet there it is on their receivers. So clearly leaving out portions of the company name don't seem to be out of line with the ATF. Further, the regulations do not say that the city and state must be printed underneath the company name.

Yes, I can find DPMS by itself. It is separated by a "/" as trade name, just like other trade names which are owned by the same company.

Right above the city, state and country is "DPMS" by itself as well.

I guess you think that they choose to put DPMS above the city, state and country for the fun of it or to confuse people, right?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...-sec478-92.pdf

So DPMS Panther Arms very well could be the manufacturer and they put another DPMS on the side for fun.

You have no case. Sorry.

Actually, have no case and you appear to be a troll. I find it hard to believe that you really believe what you are saying, although it is possible. I love your conflicts with whether DPMS exists or not though.

The fact that DPMS is above the required city, state and country, indicates that is the company name, rather than some other name in another area of the receiver, but for some odd reason you want to claim that means nothing and the real name is elsewhere. Amazing.

[longv]

the rifle that's being questioned has a logo of dpms panther arms that wouldnt be considered make or model then right?

[kemasa]

I don't think that the logo would be an issue, it is the words "Panther" next to it which is the possible problem.

If the court actually found that the specific model had to be listed, then the previous view would be changed. I have not seen that change though. This would also mean that if model abc was banned and the manufacturer added a "d", making it a model abcd, then it would not be banned, but that does not appear to be how it is viewed, but who knows, the DOJ is not going to admit that many firearm are not actually banned.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Well, as shown you are wrong. You did not bother to check a better source, such as when you used wikipedia for a reference.

So, you use bad sources and claim that I am wrong?

Better source is subjective. I stated what I found in the FOIA and made no claims otherwise. You said I removed Remington. You speculated why I did that. You were wrong on both accounts. So yes, you were wrong.

Originally Posted by kemasa

You did not bother to check a better source, such as when you used wikipedia for a reference.

Wikipedia is a fine reference. You will find citations in Wikipedia. Sorry, you are grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Ok, go back and look at the link that you provided. You want to claim that DPMS does not exist?

DPMS by itself does not exist. Sorry. Facts are facts. Does it really matter? Not in the slightest. However, you chose to hang your hat on the "What is on the firearm is what is on the FFL" peg. That is you, not me.

Originally Posted by kemasa

As required, DPMS is on the firearm, above the city, state and country, so why isn't it DPMS Panther Arms there? I guess you think that if a manufacturer puts a Zombie on the receiver then suddenly there is a Zombie firearms manufacturer, right?

Zombies? WTF?

Originally Posted by kemasa

It is a model line.Why would DPMS exclude Panther for CA versions?

DPMS/Panther Arms is not a model line or they wouldn't tell you to send your information to DPMS/Panther Arms. DPMS excluded the Panther so weak minded gun grabbers woldn't try to argue that it was a listed assault weapon. CYA.

Originally Posted by kemasa

So, you say that DPMS, which you claimed does not exist, makes "Panther MODELED firearms", but that Panther is not a model? Huh? Since the list says "Panther (all)", you claim regarding the model is absurd.

You can't even keep up with what I say and it is written down plain as day for you to read. Go look it up again. You are so confused.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Which is it? Do you think that DPMS exists or not? You are all over the board with this.

Of course they exist. You are the one that claimed that what is on the FFL is what must be on the firearm. Again, you have confused yourself. Take a step back and breathe.

Originally Posted by kemasa

If you can get a real legal opinion that the "(all)" is no longer valid with respect to DPMS firearms which also have the word "Panther" on it, then you will have something.

Yes we would.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yes, DPMS Panther Arms exists as a DBA, but that does not mean that it exists as a firearm manufacturer.

That might be true, but does that make it a model number?

Originally Posted by kemasa

Yes, I can find DPMS by itself. It is separated by a "/" as trade name, just like other trade names which are owned by the same company.

Citation?

Originally Posted by kemasa

I guess you think that they choose to put DPMS above the city, state and country for the fun of it or to confuse people, right?

Anything is possible. You are the one who wanted to die on the side of the lower must be exact cross.

Originally Posted by kemasa

Actually, have no case and you appear to be a troll. I find it hard to believe that you really believe what you are saying, although it is possible. I love your conflicts with whether DPMS exists or not though.

I have no conflict on whether DPMS exists or not. All of this is generated by your weak attemps at logic. Your ship was poked full of holes and now you are sinking.

Originally Posted by kemasa

The fact that DPMS is above the required city, state and country, indicates that is the company name, rather than some other name in another area of the receiver, but for some odd reason you want to claim that means nothing and the real name is elsewhere. Amazing.

Are you prohibited from putting the manufacturer on the firearm twice? Again, what evidence do you have to support that Panther Arms is a model number and not the well established DBA (since you love that acronym) for Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services?

Basically you have to make the case that the firearm in question is the DPMS model Panther Arms MOD.A-15. Other than "well it has the word panther on it" you have no evidence to show that is the model number.

Although I have clearly shown that DPMS is also known as and has the logo of DPMS/Panther Arms and commonly "MOD" would be short for "MODEL" and so "MOD.A-15" would make it a DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15, you somehow think that is not the case.

Let's just end it there. I have my opinion. You have yours. Only reply if this is not accurate.

Wes thinks it is a Make = DPMS/Panther Arms Model=MOD.A-15 or even Model=A-15.

Kemasa thinks it is a Make = DPMS Model=Panther Arms or Model=Panther Arms MOD.A-15

Until the courts decide, we are not going to change our minds. It is cool. I am comfortable with my stance.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by kemasa

If the court actually found that the specific model had to be listed, then the previous view would be changed.

The California Supreme Court did rule that the specific make and model must be listed. The Kasler List was made after the fact with (all) in it. Did the DOJ do this in vioaltion of Harrott? There is only one way to find out.

Odds are we won't care when the semi-auto ban passes and all of this becomes pointless.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Better source is subjective. I stated what I found in the FOIA and made no claims otherwise. You said I removed Remington. You speculated why I did that. You were wrong on both accounts. So yes, you were wrong.

You are correct in that respect. I did not realize that you used a bad source. I have to wonder why the FOIA does not match the FFL database.

Wikipedia is a fine reference. You will find citations in Wikipedia. Sorry, you are grasping at straws.

It might be correct, but it might be wrong. In this case it is wrong as your link for the DBA shows.

DPMS by itself does not exist. Sorry. Facts are facts. Does it really matter? Not in the slightest. However, you chose to hang your hat on the "What is on the firearm is what is on the FFL" peg. That is you, not me.

DPMS does exist. DPMS Panther Arms is just a DBA for DPMS.

Zombies? WTF?

The name and logo on the side is not the official name. I know you can't understand that.

DPMS/Panther Arms is not a model line or they wouldn't tell you to send your information to DPMS/Panther Arms.

Huh? It is a DBA, as well as a model line, which is why they can just have DPMS on it. You really need to get some common sense.

DPMS excluded the Panther so weak minded gun grabbers woldn't try to argue that it was a listed assault weapon. CYA.

Where is the citation that they can put any name on the firearm instead of their actual name or an acceptable abbreviation, such as DPMS instead of being spelled out.

You can't even keep up with what I say and it is written down plain as day for you to read. Go look it up again. You are so confused.

You are correct here as well since you keep saying different things.

Of course they exist. You are the one that claimed that what is on the FFL is what must be on the firearm. Again, you have confused yourself. Take a step back and breathe.

Yet you said that they didn't.

...
I have no conflict on whether DPMS exists or not. All of this is generated by your weak attemps at logic. Your ship was poked full of holes and now you are sinking.

That is funny. You said that the company name was DPMS Panther Arms, not DPMS, but your own link shows otherwise. You have said that DPMS does exist, it is DPMS Panther Arms, which is false.

Are you prohibited from putting the manufacturer on the firearm twice? Again, what evidence do you have to support that Panther Arms is a model number and not the well established DBA (since you love that acronym) for Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services?

The name can be put on multiple times, which is the case for DPMS, but not DPMS Panther Arms. DPMS is on the FFL and the firearm, as well they make firearms which does not have the Panther Arms, which would be a problem if it was their name.

Basically you have to make the case that the firearm in question is the DPMS model Panther Arms MOD.A-15. Other than "well it has the word panther on it" you have no evidence to show that is the model number.

It has been shown that DPMS is the name of the company, the name on the FFL and the name on the firearm, which makes Panther not the name, other than one DBA, but the DBA does not make them a manufacturer under that name.

Although I have clearly shown that DPMS is also known as and has the logo of DPMS/Panther Arms and commonly "MOD" would be short for "MODEL" and so "MOD.A-15" would make it a DPMS/Panther Arms MOD.A-15, you somehow think that is not the case.

I say that the manufacturer is DPMS.

Let's just end it there. I have my opinion. You have yours. Only reply if this is not accurate.

There are quite a few things that are not accurate, which I correct, so you can let it drop after my corrections.

Wes thinks it is a Make = DPMS/Panther Arms Model=MOD.A-15 or even Model=A-15.

Kemasa thinks it is a Make = DPMS Model=Panther Arms or Model=Panther Arms MOD.A-15

I say that the make is DPMS, there is a model line of Panther Arms, then a specific model.

Until the courts decide, we are not going to change our minds. It is cool. I am comfortable with my stance.

I am sure that you are.

[KIMBER8400]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Which gets us right back to where we were. You don't really care what anyone says, your mind is made up no matter what the evidence. Your goal from the start seems to be that of the GunBroker Police. Someone give the guy a badge.



More fail for you. In 2008 I said I wouldn't want to be the test case. That is not me saying, "At one point in time you implied that DPMS Panther Arms Mod a-15 is banned, then you argue that it's not."

I also told him unless he wants to do it out of principle there are other lowers with less risk. I implied someone might find it worth their while to test this out back then, which means I thought they might have a case. Just like the case I am making now.

You have been misquoting me this entire time. Step up your game.

I never said you said it, I said you implied.
I said (quoting my own statement for special ones),

at one point in time you implied that DPMS Panther Arms Mod a-15 is banned, then you argue that it's not.

English lesson of the day: the difference between implied and expressed, see below.
im•plied
[im-plahyd] Show IPA
adjective
involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implied?s=t

It is clear that you’ve been blaming your lack of comprehension of the language on my so called “misquoting.” See you assume a lot without valid supportive facts.

Legal lesson of the day: the difference between implied and expressed, see below.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied

In its legal application, the term implied is used in contrast with express, where the intention regarding the subject matter is explicitly and directly indicated. When something is implied, its meaning is derived from the words or actions of the individuals involved.

Here is you direct quote at issue:

I wouldn't want to be the test case for it, but you can.
There are too many other lowers out there that aren't even close to being listed, unless you are doing it out of principle, there is no practical reason to take that risk.

in response to this question:

i just saw a dpms a-15 in a california gun shop
near the logo it says DPMS - Panther Arms

then below the .223\5.56mm markings it says

model a-15

it does say panther near the manufacturer name but not as a model.
whats your guys' opinions on this.
edit: seems like he should get rid of that thing ASAP!

Using the legal application of implied on your direct quote whereby deriving the meaning of your statement in the quote above from the words or actions. When you said, “there are too many other lowers out there that are not even close to being listed,” in response to whether or not DPMS Panther Arms Mod A-15 is legal; you have implicitly stated that DPMS Panther Arms Mod A-15 is beyond “close to being listed,” thereby listed = banned. Further, your actions here indicating that you don’t want to be the, “test case for it” also indicates that you do believe that the rifle is listed.

Last but not least, there were several arguments made in that thread that the rifle is banned, but you had never addressed those issues back then. However somehow you want to convince and persuade that your way of interpreting current statutes and case law is the correct way.

You don't really care what anyone says, your mind is made up no matter what the evidence. Your goal from the start seems to be that of the GunBroker Police. Someone give the guy a badge.

Yeah, and about this^^^
I don't have a problem of accepting one side or the other; provided that it is supported by facts and not baseless assumptions. So far you have failed to demonstrate and convince that more likely than not by (preponderance of the evidence) the rifle is legal.
But it aint your fault the law is set up that way! No police badges here, but you certainly need an "expert's" badge.

[kemasa]

I have to wonder if someone wants others to be the test case, so it is being promoted as being legal just to see what happens. This is not the first time that this appeared to be the case.

[bohoki]

i figured they went with the panther as to blend with the bushmaster snake and colt pony funny i dont remember if eagle arms had an eagle

and i dont think vulcan ever had spock

i still swear that spikes tactical is really chewbacca

[KIMBER8400]

Originally Posted by bohoki

i figured they went with the panther as to blend with the bushmaster snake and colt pony funny i dont remember if eagle arms had an eagle

and i dont think vulcan ever had spock

i still swear that spikes tactical is really chewbacca